This made me so sick, I didn't know how to respond

If a mother does not want a parasite she can have it removed. If the parasite cannot live outside of the mother’s body… why is she to blame? You say its human it has rights, fine ok… but it doesn’t have rights to the woman’s body. It is genetically different and even if it wasn’t it is the woman’s right to chose what is inside and what is outside. Fair and simple.

So babies are now parasites…what will they think of next?

Where did you find this quote?

You need to point out that they were once a “parasite” and that its somewhat incorrect to lump an unborn child as a parasite simply because its a natural process of human development.

By their logic a born baby is a parasite - it’s completley dependant on everyone about it. Lets see a 2 day old baby survive on its own. It can’t. It doesn’t matter if the child is adopted or surrended it’s still a “parasite” requiring the care and attention of others.

If they still adhere to the “its a parasite” line, then point out they support infanticide and if they don’t they’re a hypocrite.

Children may be parasites, but usually they are the ones already born. I mean, how does any teenager contribute to a parent’s physical well-being? :smiley:

A pet owner can also put their pet down if it costs too much… I mean, that comparison is really too much. Forget infanticide, putting your pet to sleep is legal at any age, as long as they’re in your care. A chilling thought when applied to children.

The distinction that pro-choicers who advance this argument are missing (besides the obvious distinction between a parasite and a human being) is a duty of care. Judith Jarvis Thomson has a somewhat similar thought experiment to this called “The Violinist” in 1971: you can get the gist of it here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violinist_(thought_experiment). It’s both a clever and incredibly callous argument in that it doesn’t matter whether the baby is a human being.

The reason it’s legal to surgically detach the violinist in that hypothetical is because the person has no reasonable legal duty to care. We can’t be expected to feed every poor child on Earth, but we **are **legally responsible for feeding our own. If it is your child, and you haven’t turned over those rights via adoption (or something similar), you have a legal duty to provide for the kid, even things like medical care. Hopefully, that makes sense - it’s only sort of related, but I think it’s important. He/She’s not just “a” child, it’s “her” child, and she’s responsible for the kid, whether she wants to be or not.

It always amazes me that there are those who say a woman has an absolute right to her own body, and what goes on in it, and that the goverment should have no say.

But then when a 18 year old want’s to put a beer in her own body, some of those same people say it’s not right. And they want the government to intervene!

That’s called hypocracy.

that person is forgetting something:

Who invited the “parasite” in??? :rolleyes:

(not that rape/incest babies should be aborted… :eek: They did not ask to be there… committed no crime…are just as human / precious as planned babies…).

You got that right!!! HYPOCRACY!!!:mad:

The idea that dependents are parasites has a long history… at least a couple of generations, anyway. Let’s just keep praying the American people will continue to believe in the value of human life and do so with more courage and backbone every day.

par⋅a⋅site
   /ˈpærəˌsaɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [par-uh-sahyt] Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun

  1. an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.
  2. a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.
  3. (in ancient Greece) a person who received free meals in return for amusing or impudent conversation, flattering remarks, etc.

According to the first definition, it would appear that any an unborn organism can be classified as having parasitic attributes.

Aha! The unborn are the same species as their mothers, do usually give substantial return, and not normally int eh form of flattery or amusing remarks (though some kids are hilarious). They are not parasites by any of these definitions.

No more than an infant who is being breast fed. But parasites–as a class-- are never members of the same species. And if you want to make comparisons, maybe thing of the mother who aborts her child, is guility of a kind of cannibalism --eating her young to profit herself.

Yeah, you’re right. I read the definition so quickly I missed the “another species” qualifier.

I’ve heard that one a couple times already.

Start with the babies, move on with the mentally disabled, then the paralyzed, then the old…

Life is life is life. If we do not uphold that, we may as well murder everyone who is not healthy, good-looking and had a job.

reminds me of Adolf

Scientifically speaking, an unborn child is a parasite. If that term offends you, don’t use it.

No he isn’t. An unborn child is actually a member of the mother’s own species in what is in fact a symbiotic relationship with her more often than not.

Not sure you can say this without incorporating all life. Then you have to employ all new criteria to justify why you should differentiate between human life and every other life, if you think human life should be respected above any other. Then you also have to explain why the proliferation of human life is to be favoured over the survival of other species…

I have not heard that babies are parasites…I have heard that they may be a burden to the mother and thus, if she wishes to unload that burden, (by killing it at any stage of growth) it should be her choice. Yes, non other than our genious President Obama said that. Sad state of affairs in our country!

Love and prayers,

Mom of 5

How to respond to anyone …

Say these words with authority.

“All human life is worthy of profound respect. Human life is sacred.”

Smile at the person
:smiley: and add

“Including yours.”

Blessings
granny

Not to be rude, but it’s “genius”. I just found that post ironic.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.